L!ve From > DC

"W Ketchup is America's ketchup"

American creativity at its ingenious best.

Be sure to check out the "About W Ketchup" section.

Independent Talk Radio in Iraq

Yet another manifestation of Iraq's newfound freedom aka George Bush's Vietnam.

"Radio Dijla has also become required listening for the country's new authorities," the paper said. Our opinion does not count, but what always counts is your opinion Radio Dijla

The station reportedly receives up to 18,000 calls a day, although it can only answer a fraction of that number.

"This is a new concept for Iraq, and the Arab world, and fills a yawning gap... We've quickly become a part of people's lives," Dr Rikabi told The Guardian.

"It shows the desperate need of ordinary Iraqis to share and communicate their pains and joys. I thought I had a good idea, but I never expected this amount of interest so soon. We are already number one in Baghdad," he said.

Callers to the programme, entitled "A Poll", are allowed to express their opinions freely without further comment by the presenter.

"Our opinion does not count, but what always counts is your opinion," the radio tells listeners repeatedly.

Putin: Saddam planned terrorist attacks on US territory

Expect this story to get no more space than what it has received below:

(Update: The story has gone missing from Reuters site; BBC link to it here)

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia had several times in the past warned the United States that Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on U.S. territory, Russian news agencies reported.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," Interfax quoted Putin as saying.

None of the so-called liberal, intellectual blogs are touching this either. It is no exaggeration that this development is a rude shock to those who had returned to bash Bush over the 9/11 commission's claim that there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda collaboration over the attacks: despite the fact that the Bush administration never made such a claim, although, if we weren't so focused on a criminal justice standard of evidence, we might have allowed ourselves to wonder what came from all those meetings between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

This is how it works: first, you indoctrinate people with stuff the administration never said. Next you get the administration to deny they ever said it; and last, you triumphantly publicize the denial as yet another lie.

An important component of this lifecycle--bury, quietly, important stories that bolster the administration's position.

MoveOn selling Fahrenheit 9/11

MoveOn.org, which supported Howard Dean and is now John Kerry's propaganda arm is plugging Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 . A recent MoveOn newsletter links to this peurile review of the movieby a Roger Friedman.

No Ebert, Friedman can barely write, and the review is crammed with silly, biased observations:

* "a tribute to patriotism"
* "indictment of [the American soldier's] stupidity and [the Bush administration's] avarice"
* "not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated"
* " mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide — just like the commercials say — and lives to regret it."
* "Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode."
* "simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker."

A high-school writer could do better, but the strategic value of this review's appearance on Fox News was simply too good to leave unexploited, and MoveOn gleefully picked it for its email newsletter, urging members to go see the movie on "the opening night -- Friday, June 25th. (If you can't make it on Friday, pledging to go on Saturday or Sunday is fine, too). It'll be fun, of course -- you'll be watching the movie with lots of other MoveOn members."

Michael Moore fans are juvenile, conspiracy-minded, America-loathing buffoons who are too dumb to realize that his conspiracy theories are not a "tribute to patriotism": they endanger the lives of American soldiers. Iraqis are likely to kill, not embrace, American troops when they see a documentary that insists that the soldiers are there not to liberate, but to steal their oil and install a puppet government.

Moore fans need to question his judgement and motives--a gifted director, he could have explored the culture of hate that gave birth to 9/11 and which is behind the current spate of deadly attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Instead, by choosing to portray American soldiers as incompetent, culturally insensitive goons, Moore deliberately crafted his film to titillate propagandists--this work was designed to make a splash in Europe and on the Arab street.

That 20-minute ovation at Cannes last month wasn't so much about critical acclaim for F9-11 as about disdain and envy for the determination and ability of George W. Bush's America to mobilize and fight back after 9-11. (At the height of the Abu Ghraib crisis, Moore's film helped the French to forget the torture and murder of thousands of Algerians during that colony's war of independence.)

A democratic Middle East is the ultimate solution to the problem of Islamist terrorism and Moore knows this. He also knows that the world is better off without the Taliban and Saddam and sons, removed by the same crass American soldiers shamelessly criticized for the applause of the snooty French who, even today, balk at the prospect of shedding European blood to help Arabs.

Guilty of the very avarice he chastizes the Bush administration for, Moore fans cognitive dissonance about the mission in Iraq and profits from it.

Likewise, John Kerry's refusal to get MoveOn to stop the spread of malicious propaganda that puts the lives of his fellow citizens at risk indicates that the Presidential candidate still thinks the worst about America.

Liberals Furious with David Brooks

The liberal rage against David Brooks, a staunch supporter of the liberation of Iraq, redoubled in intensity shortly after he took up writing for the New York Times last September.

David PLOTZ over at Slate recently took the attacks to a whole new level.

He starts off attempting to create a sense of verisimilitude by quoting liberal commentators--former Brooks fans--who now find the conservative to be "annoying" and lacking "ideas—or anger—to sustain a twice-a-week column".

Then, in the blink of an eye, Plotz holds Brooks responsible for sending America to war...a bit like the Michael Berg holding Bush responsible for his son's beheading in Iraq.

Brooksianism helped set the table for the wars on terror and Iraq but ducks from their consequences. In 1997, Brooks wrote an influential manifesto for the Weekly Standard, "A Return to National Greatness." Brooks claimed the United States was losing the sense of grand national mission that built the Panama Canal, conquered the West, won the Cold War, built the interstates, and walked on the moon. America needed to reanimate itself with a cause, and the federal government needed to "convey a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation."

In other words, were it not for folks like Brooks, Americans would not die in unjust wars that are undertaken or sustained for "national psyche"--as Plotz views Vietnam and Iraq.

In this worldview the liberation of Iraq is routinely characterized as an imperial war on Iraqis.

Soon, Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 will hit theaters at home and attempt to seduce potential voters into dumping Bush for stealing Iraqi oil

This isn't about two competing visions for America--it is about people who are determined to prove--whether they themselves believe this is open to debate--that George W. Bush's sunny, simple-minded optimism about freedom in the Middle East is actually a facade and that he is more dangerous than the collective ambitions of Bin Laden and Saddam.

This is about convincing Americans that America is the ultimate force of evil on the planet and that the Bush administration represents a microcosm of all that is wrong with this country today.

Last week, I ran into a young Kerry aide at a party and before long this individual was claiming that Bush had a hand in 9/11--the attacks served as an excuse to launch the administration's "endless wars".

This is not too far removed from Plotz's own assessment:

[Brooks'] National Greatness became a powerful idea in the Republican Party's Teddy Roosevelt wing, and when Sept. 11 occurred, National Greatness found its cause: rooting out terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East. Brooks and his Weekly Standard colleagues called for war in Iraq, and Brooks preached about the noble benefits of democratizing the Arab world.

Der Weasels

Check this out--a translation of a Der Spiegel piece on the recently concluded G-8 summit at Sea Island, Georgia.

Their conclusion? A "beleagured" Bush (described elsewhere as a "crass meddler", "clueless", "malicious gloater") tried to be conciliatory, rebuild bridges, and generally attempted to show that he can be flexible, but failed miserably.

Reality? Yes, Bush did give "Old Europe" one more chance to prove that they have a shred of decency and compassion left in their husks, and they failed, miserably.

Not only did rich nations like France and Germany refuse to forgive Iraqi debt run up by Saddam Hussein, they also failed to cough up troops or dollars in support of a new Iraq--disproving Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry who still insists he would have done better with our so-called allies.

Back to Abu Ghraib

Yesterday, I caught myself watching Lyndon Johnson's funeral on C-Span--comparing it to Reagan's and so on.

Wasn't that great--five days of nothing but living in the past?

A welcome breather from "Torturegate" is over.

Let me make this clear one more time: what they are calling "torture" is a nasty interrogation technique that should be reserved for nasty individuals.

People--women and children--are being blown up left and right by terrorists in Iraq. Better intelligence from detainees aids in heading off terrorism.

It aids in the capture of thugs like Saddam and his sons.

It also helps protect American lives in Iraq.

It makes would-be terrorists and other criminals think twice before they commit these heinous acts--who wants to wind up in a detention facility run by Private England?

What is so difficult to understand?

Reagan's letters

A superb collection of his letters--some dating back to to 1922!

This book, a steal at $6.00 for the hardcover at Barnes & Noble a few months ago, forever changed my perceptions of Reagan and gave a special meaning to this last week.
From Hollywood moguls to children to critics to admirers to concerned citizens, Reagan wrote frequently and brilliantly--this is him in his own words.

"Reading is a magic carpet and you can never be lonely if you learn to enjoy a good book," Reagan advises a young correspondent in one of the letters.

It is, indeed, a magic carpet ride as you trace his amazing life through these letters.

The 'Great Communicator' shines through in every page; you will be moved by his experiences and shocked to learn that his core beliefs never really changed much over the years--a remarkable accomplishment in itself.

The antiwar lobby: "grand harmonic convergence of all the world's loser ideologies"

The enemy without cannot be defeated without understanding the nature of the enemy within.

An oldie goldie: Read it, save it, pass it on.

Bush proves Kerry wrong on Iraq

It's been a triumphant couple of weeks for Bush.

First, as outlined in the 'roadmap to Iraqi sovereignty' of November 2003, he got the UN envoy to assemble an interim Iraqi government and put things on track for June 30.

Next he got the UN to approve his latest resolution on Iraq--the eighth authored by his administration since the removal of Saddam.

And today, Bush conclusively proved that Kerry's Iraq strategy isn't really a strategy at all.

For those who missed it, a few weeks ago, Kerry demanded "internationalization" of Iraq--meaning a greater UN role--meaning more troops and money from France, Russia, Germany, and China. A few days later, he added a NATO role without explaining how the UN and NATO (which doesn't include Russia and China) would work together in Iraq.

While these utterances won critical acclaim from the left, there was little reporting on the fact that Kerry's suggestions were summarily dismissed by French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier.

Describing Iraq as a "black hole", Barnier rejected the possibility of French troops for Iraq.

"It is out of the question," Barnier told Le Monde newspaper. ‘‘There will be no French soldiers in Iraq, not now and not later."

Translation--no troops for Iraq--not under President Bush, not under President Kerry.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meanwhile, expressed reservations about a NATO role in Iraq.

"I have my doubts as to whether NATO is really the right instrument," said Schroeder.

Today, at the G8 meeting, Bush got French President Chirac to
formally reject a NATO role.

Bush has been saying all along that he didn't expect the nations that boycotted the liberation of Iraq to now turn around and send troops.

Kerry, it turns out is the dreamy idealist, but expect the media to hush this up.